What Survey Questions Should You Ask About Managers?
A manager-feedback survey makes the manager the unit of measurement—collecting ratings from direct reports, peers, and the manager themselves on competencies like goal-setting, feedback quality, development support, and fairness. It is distinct from the 'my manager' driver items inside a broader engagement survey, where the manager is one factor among many. Gallup's State of the American Manager (2015) found that managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across business units—making direct, structured upward measurement one of the highest-ROI investments in people analytics.
Copy-Ready Questions, Grouped by Theme
Every group uses the scale that fits it. Copy one question, a whole theme, or the full set straight into your survey tool.
Direction & Expectations
5-pt LikertStrongly disagree → Strongly agreeMeasures whether the manager sets clear goals, communicates priorities, and makes sound decisions—the structural foundation of team performance.
- 1.
My manager sets clear expectations and goals for my work.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceUnclear expectations are the single most common driver of disengagement; this item maps directly to QSET-013 competency #1.
- 2.
My manager communicates priorities when demands compete for my time.
Competing priorities are a leading source of workload stress; this item catches managers who set goals without helping reports navigate trade-offs.
- 3.
My manager makes sound decisions in a timely manner.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceIndecisive or consistently slow decision-making blocks team execution; this surfaces a competency gap invisible to engagement driver surveys.
- 4.
My manager keeps the team aligned on how our work connects to broader organizational goals.
Line-of-sight to strategy is an engagement driver in its own right; managers who cannot articulate it erode meaning and motivation.
- 5.
When plans change, my manager updates the team promptly.
Responsiveness to change distinguishes adaptive from rigid management; useful as a 360 self-vs-others gap indicator.
Feedback & Recognition
5-pt LikertStrongly disagree → Strongly agreeAssesses the quality and frequency of feedback and recognition the manager provides—two of the most under-delivered manager behaviors.
- 1.
My manager gives me regular feedback that helps me improve my work.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceOnly 26% of employees strongly agree that feedback they receive helps them do better work (Gallup). This item directly measures that gap at the manager level.
- 2.
My manager's feedback is specific enough for me to act on.
Frequency is only half the picture; feedback must be actionable. This item catches managers who give frequent but vague feedback.
- 3.
My manager acknowledges and recognizes my contributions.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceMore than half of US employees (55%) receive no recognition or recognition that misses the mark (Gallup/Workhuman). This item puts recognition accountability on the manager.
- 4.
My manager recognizes good work in ways that feel meaningful, not just performative.
Quality of recognition matters as much as frequency; employees who receive high-quality recognition are 45% less likely to leave (Workhuman & Gallup, 2024).
- 5.
My manager gives constructive feedback when my work does not meet expectations.
The willingness to give corrective feedback is a distinguishing competency; its absence leads to unchecked performance drift.
Development & Growth
5-pt LikertStrongly disagree → Strongly agreeExamines whether the manager actively invests in direct reports' skills, career paths, and long-term potential.
- 1.
My manager supports my professional development and career growth.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceLack of career development has been the top reason employees leave for more than ten consecutive years (Work Institute Retention Report). Managers are the primary gatekeeper of development opportunity.
- 2.
My manager has a clear understanding of my career goals.
Managers cannot develop people they do not know; this item surfaces whether career conversations are actually happening.
- 3.
My manager gives me opportunities to develop new skills in my current role.
On-the-job development is the most accessible and cost-effective form of growth; managers control most of that access.
- 4.
My manager advocates for my advancement within the organization.
Sponsorship—actively promoting a direct report's visibility and opportunities—is distinct from mentoring and is a measurable manager behavior.
Communication & Fairness
5-pt LikertStrongly disagree → Strongly agreeMeasures whether the manager communicates context transparently and treats team members equitably—two areas where gaps strongly predict disengagement and attrition.
- 1.
My manager communicates the reasoning behind important decisions.
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceEmployees who understand the 'why' behind decisions report higher trust and lower attrition intent; this item surfaces transparency gaps.
- 2.
My manager keeps the team informed about changes that affect our work.
Information withholding—even unintentional—breeds rumor and disengagement; proactive communication is a learnable manager behavior.
- 3.
My manager treats all team members fairly and with respect.
QSET-013 compiled best-practicePerceived fairness is a strong predictor of trust and psychological safety; this item flags favoritism and unequal treatment.
- 4.
My manager creates an environment where I feel comfortable raising concerns.
Psychological safety—the belief that speaking up is safe—is an outcome of manager behavior, not team composition. Low scores here predict issue under-reporting.
- 5.
My manager listens to my input before making decisions that affect my work.
Globally, only one in four employees strongly agree that their opinions count at work (Gallup Q12); this item attributes that gap directly to the manager.
Overall Effectiveness & Self-Rating
5-pt LikertStrongly disagree → Strongly agreeA short summative section for the 360 read-out: an overall effectiveness rating from each rater group, plus a self-rating from the manager for the core self-vs-others gap analysis.
- 1.
Overall, this manager is effective at leading the team.
A single overall effectiveness item anchors the report and provides a cross-rater comparison point (self vs. direct reports vs. peers vs. manager's manager).
- 2.
I would recommend working with this manager to a colleague joining the team.
An advocacy proxy that captures relationship quality and manager reputation from the direct-report perspective.
- 3.
[Self-rating] I consistently demonstrate the behaviors I would want my team to model.
The self-assessment item; administered only to the manager being rated. The gap between self and others on this item is a core 360 output.
Open Feedback (Start / Stop / Continue)
Open textFree textStructured open-ended prompts that give raters a voice beyond rating scales. Responses are coded thematically and shared as anonymized verbatim quotes in the development report.
- 1.
What is one behavior this manager should start doing that would make them more effective?
QSET-013 compiled best-practiceThe 'start' prompt surfaces developmental opportunities the manager may be blind to—the highest-yield 360 question.
- 2.
What is one behavior this manager should stop doing or do less of?
The 'stop' prompt is harder to give in person; anonymous 360 feedback makes honest answers more likely here than in any other format.
- 3.
What is one thing this manager does well that you hope they continue?
Strengths are as important as gaps in a development-focused 360; this item prevents reports from being exclusively problem-focused.
When Should You Use This Survey?
Match the survey type and cadence to your situation.
You want to develop your managers and have a budget for coaching or learning programs
Use
Avoid
Using results in performance reviews or compensation decisionsThe 360 format is built for development. The self-vs-others gap is the insight; it only emerges when raters respond honestly, which requires a development-only commitment.
You want a quick read on manager effectiveness across teams (no coaching infrastructure yet)
Use
Avoid
Running a full 360 without a plan to debrief each manager individuallyA pulse gives population-level signal without the overhead of individual coaching. Full 360s without debriefs waste rater effort and damage trust.
Your engagement scores show 'my manager' as a low driver, and you need to understand why
Use
Avoid
Rerunning the same engagement survey with slightly different wordingAn engagement survey tells you the 'my manager' driver is low. A manager-effectiveness survey tells you which competency is driving that score. You need both instruments, not more of one.
You are a manager who wants to understand your own blind spots before your organization runs a formal process
Use
Avoid
Asking only your strongest advocatesInformal 360s work best when raters represent a range of tenures, levels, and perspectives. A sample of advocates produces flattering data, not useful data.
You are preparing managers for a leadership development program or executive coaching
Use
Avoid
Running the 360 during the program itselfPre-program data sets a baseline and focuses coaching. Post-program data measures transfer of learning. Running it during the program conflates initial discomfort with developmental progress.
What "Good" Looks Like
Scores only mean something against a benchmark. Here are the numbers worth measuring against.
at least 70%
Managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across business units.
Gallup, State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders (2015)
26%
Only 26% of employees strongly agree that the feedback they receive helps them do better work.
Gallup, Feedback Is Not Enough
55%
More than half (55%) of US employees either receive no recognition or recognition that meets none of the five pillars of strategic recognition.
Gallup / Workhuman, Employee Retention Depends on Getting Recognition Right
45% less likely to leave
Employees who received high-quality recognition in 2022 were 45% less likely to have left their job by 2024.
Workhuman & Gallup, The Human-Centered Workplace (2024)
~21–23% higher profitability
Top-quartile vs. bottom-quartile business units show 21–23% higher profitability, 17–21% higher productivity, and 10% higher customer ratings.
Gallup Q12 Meta-Analysis (10th/11th ed.)
Fell from 27% to 22%
Global manager engagement fell from 27% (2024) to 22% (2025)—the largest single-year drop of any worker category.
Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026
Survey Design Best Practices
The methodology that separates a survey people answer honestly from one they ignore.
Use a 5-point agreement scale and hold it across all competency items
A 5-point Likert scale is appropriate for operational and competency-level manager assessment. Do not mix a 7-point scale into the same survey unless you are running a research project requiring fine-grained attitude measurement; mixing scales within one survey breaks comparability and creates rater confusion.
METH-002 — Formbricks (citing Krosnick & Presser); InMoment
Each item must test exactly one competency—no double-barreled questions
Do not write items like 'My manager communicates clearly and treats people fairly.' That is two competencies in one question; a rater who agrees with one but not the other cannot answer honestly. If your 360 instrument has items with U-shaped response distributions, rewrite them—the distribution pattern signals a double-barreled or leading item.
METH-003 — Formbricks; SuperSurvey; QuestionPro
Collect at least 3 raters per role for the results to be actionable
A 360 report based on 1–2 raters is not statistically meaningful and is not truly anonymous—the manager will know exactly who said what. Apply the same minimum-reporting threshold you use for survey data: suppress category-level results for groups with fewer than 3–5 raters, and state this threshold in your participant communications before the survey opens.
METH-007 — 15Five ('Rule of 5'); WorkTango; CultureMonkey (adapted for 360 rater groups)
Run the 360 for development, not pay or promotion decisions
Using 360 feedback in compensation or promotion decisions is the most widely flagged misuse of the instrument (QSET-013 usage note). When raters know their input will affect someone's pay, they either inflate ratings to protect the relationship or deflate them for personal reasons—either way, the data quality collapses. Keep 360 results in the development conversation between the manager and their coach or manager-of-managers.
QSET-013 usage note; METH-012 licensing and attribution discipline
Share results back to the manager being rated within a clear timeframe
Closing the feedback loop means the rated manager receives a written report—ideally within three weeks of the survey close—with their competency means, the self-vs-others gap on each dimension, and anonymized verbatim open-ends. Without a structured debrief, 360 data is collected but not absorbed, and rater trust in the process erodes.
METH-008 — Perceptyx; Gallup; Culture Amp
Treat the self-vs-others gap as the primary read-out, not the absolute score
The diagnostic power of a 360 comes from comparing how a manager rates themselves against how their direct reports, peers, and manager rate them—not from the raw average. A manager who scores 4.1 out of 5 on 'gives useful feedback' but rates themselves 4.8 has a meaningful blind spot. Build your reporting template around gap analysis, not leaderboard scores.
QSET-013 scoring note
Survey Mistakes That Wreck Your Data
Using 360 results in pay or promotion decisions
This is the most consequential misuse of the 360 format. When raters believe their input affects someone's salary or advancement, scores inflate across the board—and the self-vs-others gap, which is the instrument's core diagnostic, disappears. Gallup explicitly warns against tying multi-rater feedback to compensation for the same reason it warns against linking NPS to manager pay: it changes the response behavior the instrument depends on.
Conflating engagement's 'my manager' driver with a standalone manager-feedback survey
An engagement survey measures the employee's experience. A manager-feedback survey makes the manager the measured object. The 'my manager' driver items in an engagement census (e.g., Gallup Q12 constructs around expectations, development, and recognition) are aggregated at the team level and are one factor among twelve. They do not produce a competency-level read-out of the individual manager, and they were not designed to.
Writing double-barreled competency items
Items like 'My manager communicates clearly and treats people fairly' or 'My manager is approachable and gives good feedback' combine two distinct competencies. A rater who agrees with one half but not the other is forced to give a distorted response. U-shaped distributions on a 5-point scale are a diagnostic signal that an item is double-barreled.
Running a 360 on groups too small to be anonymous
If a manager has only two direct reports, there is no anonymity—responses are effectively identified regardless of what the survey platform says. Small groups are also statistically unreliable: a single outlier response on a 3-person team changes the competency mean by 11+ points.
Skipping the debrief and letting managers self-interpret their reports
A 360 report delivered without a structured debrief is frequently misread. Managers with high self-ratings and low others-ratings tend to dismiss the gap as rater bias rather than confronting it as a blind spot. Managers with genuinely low scores may respond with shame rather than development-oriented curiosity.
Running manager feedback without telling the manager it is coming
Surprise 360s—where managers learn about the process after data collection has begun—feel punitive, damage psychological safety, and signal that the organization does not trust managers enough to give them advance notice. This undermines the development framing the instrument depends on.
Where These Questions Come From
Validated instruments have owners. Here's what's adapted from what — and how to use each one without stepping on a license.
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is a proprietary instrument owned by Kouzes & Posner / Wiley. It is referenced in this guide for editorial and descriptive purposes only. The LPI items are not reproduced here. Organizations wishing to use the LPI should license it directly from the rights holders.
Source: Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z., Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). Wiley/Pfeiffer.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is a proprietary instrument developed by Bass & Avolio, licensed through Mind Garden, Inc. It is referenced in this guide for editorial and descriptive purposes only. The MLQ items are not reproduced here. Organizations wishing to deploy the MLQ should obtain a license from Mind Garden.
Source: Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J., Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Mind Garden, Inc.
Compiled manager-effectiveness and 360 competency items (QSET-013)
The 26 survey questions in this guide are original-wording compiled best-practice items derived from the QSET-013 manager-effectiveness and 360 competency domain bank. They are not reproduced from the LPI, MLQ, or any other proprietary instrument and are free to use without a license. The competency domains (direction, feedback, development, communication, fairness) are consistent with published leadership research but are not attributed to any single instrument.
Source: QSET-013, Employee Surveys Research Data (Actify, 2026)
Launch & Follow-Up Templates
The invite, the reminder, and the results share-back — the messages that drive response rates.
Email invitation to raters (direct reports, peers, manager's manager)
Subject: Feedback requested for [Manager Name] — takes 8 minutes Hi [Rater First Name], [Manager Name] is participating in a development-focused 360 feedback process, and your perspective has been requested. Your responses are anonymous. Results will be shared only with [Manager Name] and [HR/Coach Name] for development purposes — they will not be used in performance reviews or compensation decisions. The survey takes approximately 8 minutes. [Link] Deadline: [Date] Thank you, [HR/Program Lead Name] [Company]
Send from a named HR or program lead, not an automated system address. Raters respond better when a person is accountable for the process.
Email to the manager being rated (before survey opens)
Subject: Your 360 feedback survey — what to expect Hi [Manager Name], Starting on [Date], [Number] of your raters — direct reports, peers, and [your manager's name] — will be invited to complete a short feedback survey about your leadership. Here's what you should know: - Responses are anonymous; you will see competency averages and anonymized open-ended comments, not individual ratings. - This data is for your development only. It will not be shared in performance reviews or used in compensation decisions. - You will complete a self-rating at the same time, which forms the basis of your gap analysis. - You'll receive your report and a scheduled debrief with [Coach/HR Name] by [Date]. The goal is a clear picture of your strengths and the one or two areas most worth developing. [HR/Program Lead Name] [Company]
Managers who understand the purpose and process before the survey opens respond more constructively to their reports than managers who receive results without context.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Survey Guides
A Survey Only Helps If You Act On It
The fastest way to tank your next response rate is to collect feedback and do nothing. Actify turns survey findings into action — recognition, engagement activities, and wellbeing benefits employees actually choose.
No credit card required. 15-minute setup.